MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068132419 · doi:10.1139/t10-082

Effect of anchor width on pullout capacity of strip anchors in sand

2011· article· en· W2068132419 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbedmentGeotechnical engineeringPrincipal stressLimit analysisGeologyFinite element methodStress (linguistics)Upper and lower boundsOverburden pressureMathematicsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceGeometryEngineeringComposite materialMathematical analysisShear stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By incorporating the variation of peak soil friction angle ([Formula: see text]) with mean principal stress (σ m ), the effect of anchor width (B) on vertical uplift resistance of a strip anchor plate has been examined. The anchor was embedded horizontally in a granular medium. The analysis was performed using lower bound finite element limit analysis and linear programming. An iterative procedure, proposed recently by the authors, was implemented to incorporate the variation of [Formula: see text] with σ m . It is noted that for a given embedment ratio, with a decrease in anchor width (B), (i) the uplift factor (F γ ) increases continuously and (ii) the average ultimate uplift pressure (q u ) decreases quite significantly. The scale effect becomes more pronounced at greater embedment ratios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it